The
famous mathematician Kurt Godel long
ago proved that no logical system can be both complete and completely consistent
at the same time. So why strive for the perfect political purity when no system
is attainable? And when it may lead one to embrace morally repugnant positions
at the same time? For me the genius of real democracy lies precisely in its
tolerance and synthesis of inconsistencies of all kinds. Like the blind men
and the elephant, conservatives, liberals, and libertarians each have a handle
on things that can be helpful to society and things that are not. Let's embrace
the diversity of thought that is America's greatest wealth.

"[I] was surprised
at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating
the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States .

"I think there
is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted
not just in financing – although that was part of it – by a sovereign foreign
government .

"It will
become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's
20 or 30 years from now."

9/11 conspiracy
theorists are happy to let the chips fall where they may. But unless you think
the U.S. public should be denied the names of those countries that assisted
the terrorists I can only suggest you have Christopher Hayes write to Sen. Graham
and encourage him to get back on his medication.

Thank you for
your excellent article. However, I'm baffled by one statement within: "Roosevelt
et al. never dreamed that the Japanese would – or could – come all the way to
Hawaii to wipe out the Pacific Fleet." This is at odds with information reported
in Robert B. Stinnett's very important book Day of Deceit. It's based
on declassified information – now reclassified since this book was published
– which paints a picture of a Franklin D. Roosevelt who seemed to know full
well that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent.

A reply from you
would be most appreciated.

~ Carla Howell,
president, The Center for Small Government

Gordon Prather
replies:

It
was one thing to know in December 1941 with absolute certainty that the Japanese
would attempt to destroy the American embargo fleet (which had largely been
withdrawn from our naval bases in the Philippines Islands to the safety of Pearl
Harbor, thousands of miles away) and it is quite another to even imagine that
they could have been so successful. It was a stunning achievement, the details
of which – unlike the details of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center Twin Towers – were kept from us for years.

Paul
Craig Roberts makes the most poignant points in his articles, including the
last one, "Catastrophe Still Awaits." Occasionally he makes an historical error
like the suggestion that the Democrats got us into Vietnam. Actually both political
parties did. It was Eisenhower who sent the first "advisers" there.

The most significant
part of his argument is accurate. Without resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict,
there will be no peace in the Middle East. And it is Israel which is the main
stumbling block in its refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories entirely.
International guarantees would secure their true borders and safeguard them
against terrorist attacks. Jimmy Carter called for this years ago, but no one
listened to him.

~ Bill Goldman,
Annapolis, Md.

Paul Craig
Roberts replies:

There
is a large difference between advisers and 500,000 troops. Essentially, Vietnam
was LBJ's war.

Etc.

First
let me explain that I am not representing the military, nor am I criticizing
my commanders or the president of the United States. I represent only myself,
and my feelings are those of an American citizen who just so happens to be on
active-duty in the United States Army.

I'm not trying
to embellish my deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, or my military service whatsoever.

When 200 Iraqis
die in one day, whether it's due to "sectarian violence" or "civil war," either
way there are 200 human beings who died violently. No amount of American firepower
can dictate the desire of Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites to live peacefully
with each other. Three years of American occupation in Iraq has proven this.

For the U.S. to
"win" in Iraq it requires the Iraqi government to be left stable, able to sustain
itself economically, defend its borders, and remain a democracy. I don't believe
the slim possibility of all that happening is worth the loss of life that further
occupation in Iraq will cost the United States. I believe it is time for the
troops to come home and for this war to end.

Backtalk
is edited by Sam Koritz.
Click here to send
a letter. Letters become the property of Antiwar.com and may be
edited before posting. Unless otherwise requested, authors may be
identified and e-mail addresses will not be published. The views expressed
do not necessarily represent those of Antiwar.com.